Healthy Absence or Sick Presence?
Norway has the highest sickness absence in the Nordics, and rates have surged post-pandemic. Cutting sick leave benefits may reduce abuse but risks harming those truly in need.
A Difficult Trade-Off
Cappelen poses a central ethical dilemma:
Should we accept that genuinely ill workers receive less support if it means preventing healthy people from exploiting the system?
His answer: No — and research backs him up.
In a study published in American Economic Review (2023), Cappelen and colleagues found that people generally prefer to risk giving support to someone who doesn't deserve it, rather than denying help to someone who does. This view holds across countries and political ideologies.
The Hidden Cost of Presenteeism
Cutting benefits not only hurts the truly sick but increases “presenteeism” — people going to work while ill due to guilt, pressure, or fear. This leads to worse health outcomes, lower productivity, and poorer work environments. Cappelen shares a personal example of his mother, a dedicated actor, who refused to miss a performance despite being ill.
The Takeaway
Curbing abuse is important — but policies must avoid punishing those who genuinely need help. Sometimes, the real problem isn’t absence, but unhealthy presence.
“Maybe we should ask: What’s really sicker — being absent, or showing up while sick?”
Summarized and translated from NHH Bulletin.